DOCSLIB.ORG

Freight Rail Study Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Freight Rail Study Report Freight Rail Study Evaluation of TCWR Routing Alternatives Prepared for Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority Mark Amfahr Amfahr Consulting November 29, 2010 1 Table of Contents Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………………………………… 3 Introduction and methodology……………………………………………………………………………. 4 Discussion of “Western Connection” issues…………………………………………………………. 5 TCWR grain traffic……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5 Summary of Alternatives…………………………………………………………………………………….. 7 Chaska Cut‐off…………………………………………………………………………………………. 8 Midtown Corridor…………………………………………………………………………………… 15 Highway 169 Connector………………………………………………………………………….. 23 Exhibits: Terms and abbreviations appearing in the report Chaska Cut‐off Map Midtown Corridor Map Highway 169 Map Cost detail – Chaska Cut‐off alternative Cost detail – Midtown Corridor Alternative Cost detail – Highway 169 Connector Midtown Streetcar Resolution Feb 10, 2010 document Midtown Streetcar Resolution Nov 21, 2006 document Twin Cities & Western Railroad map Twin Cities area map TCWR letter MNDOT map; Minnesota River Valley TCW Operations 2 Executive Summary In 2009, the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority (HCRRA) retained TKDA to conduct an alternatives analysis to identify all possible alternatives for routing Twin Cities and Western Railroad (TCWR) service to/from St. Paul. That study, the TCWR Freight Rail Realignment Study, 2009, identified a number of possible alternatives and evaluated them based upon engineering, freight rail operations, costs and impact to the transportation system. The objective of the analysis was to find a connection that would allow TCWR to operate economically between the Twin Cities metro area and the east end of their route network that currently extends to near Hopkins. The process began with a broad‐based review that was intended to identify all routes that could physically accommodate TCWR’s freight rail operation between those points within reasonable cost parameters. This initial review identified five routes that had the potential to fit the stated criteria. Those routes were the: Chaska Cut‐off Highway 169 Connector Kenilworth Corridor Midtown Corridor MN&S Connection The conclusion of that study was that Canadian Pacific’s MN&S line through St. Louis Park was the most viable route for TCWR freight rail service in the future. After publication of that report, the St. Louis Park City Council via resolutions 10‐070 and 10‐071 requested that HCRRA provide additional information on the routes that had been recommended for dismissal from further evaluation. Those routes were the Western Connection, the Chaska Cut‐Off, the Midtown Corridor, and the TH 169 Connector. The purpose of this report is to provide additional information in response to the request put forth in the City of St. Louis Park resolutions. Below is a table that summarizes the physical and economic characteristics of each route as developed in the study. Each evaluation measure shown below is discussed in the report. Detailed figures supporting each of the items below can be found in the exhibit section: 3 1.0 Introduction and Backgound In 2009, the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority (HCRRA) retained TKDA to conduct an alternatives analysis to identify all possible alternatives for routing Twin Cities and Western Railroad (TCWR) service to/from St. Paul. That study, the TCWR Freight Rail Realignment Study, 2009, identified six possible alternatives and evaluated them based upon engineering, freight rail operations, costs and impact to the transportation system. The objective of the analysis was to find a connection that would allow TCWR to operate safely, efficiently, and economically between the Twin Cities metro area and the east end of their network that currently extends to Hopkins. The process began with a broad‐based review that was intended to identify all routes that could physically accommodate TCWR’s freight rail operation between those points within reasonable cost parameters. This initial review evaluated a total of six routes. Those routes were the: Chaska Cut‐off Highway 169 Connector Kenilworth Corridor Midtown Corridor MN&S Connection Western Connection The conclusion of that study was that Canadian Pacific’s MNS route through St. Louis Park was the most viable route for TCWR freight rail service. After publication of that report, the St. Louis Park City Council via resolutions 10‐070 and 10‐071 requested that the HCRRA provide additional information on the routes recommended for dismissal from further evaluation. Those routes include the Western Connection, the Chaska Cut‐Off, the Midtown Corridor, and the TH 169 Connector. The purpose of this report is to provide additional information in response to City of St. Louis Park resolutions 10‐070 and 10‐071. An exhibit has been included that may be useful as a reference while reviewing this report. It is titled “Terms and abbreviations”. It provides assistance with the interpretation of many of the unique terms and abbreviations that are specific to the railroad industry, names of government agencies, etc. It can be found in the exhibit section that follows this report. Background An important component of the route evaluations is an assessment of the impacts that each route will have upon the operations of TCWR. As the railroad company that will use the route that is selected, TCWR’s interests must be considered to ensure that the route does not negatively impact their ability to conduct their business. An overview of the Twin Cities and Western Railroad’s operations has been provided as an exhibit. TCWR grain traffic When certain market conditions prevail, grain shippers located along TCWR’s lines will elect to transport their grain by rail to destinations in the Twin Cities area. In the past, grain has moved to elevators at 4 Savage in the southern metro area and to Camden in the north‐central metro. Camden is the location of a public port, open to use by all customers. Savage has terminal elevator facilities owned by Cargill, Cenex Harvest States and Whitebox Commodities. Due to the size of the facilities at Savage and the firms represented there, that destination tends to attract most grain when conditions favor rail/water movement. In the past, grain moving to Savage via TCWR has been handled by way of St. Louis Park and CP’s MN&S line. Using this route TCWR was able to deliver the grain directly to the elevators there, utilizing trackage rights that TCWR has over that line. Unfortunately, the connection that must be used to transition from the east/west CP Bass Lake line to the north/south MN&S line in St. Louis Park is inefficient as it was not designed to be used in this manner. Handling cars between the routes via this inefficient connection presents operational challenges for TCWR and problems for residents of St. Louis Park. The process is slow and difficult for TCWR and is noisy and disruptive to residents, as railcars are switched back and forth in small groups, blocking Louisiana Avenue in the process. It should be mentioned that, when market conditions are favorable, TCWR will handle large volumes of grain to Savage – during two consecutive years the company handled in excess of 10,000 carloads annually to that destination. While market conditions have not resulted in grain movements to Savage via TCWR since 2002, those conditions can change at any time. Changing market conditions in the future, possibly driven by the completion of the Panama Canal project in 2013, could again make it economically attractive for TCWR’s customers to ship their grain to Savage by rail. It is important to note that the direct routing via the MN&S line is TCWR’s only practical alternative to deliver their customers’ grain to Savage. With the exception of the Chaska Cut‐off, none of the alternatives included in the 2009 TCWR Rail Realignment Study included a route to Savage that avoided the MN&S. line via St Louis Park. Auxiliary tracks utilized for switching and car storage At various times, TCWR makes use of certain tracks along its route for purposes of switching/blocking and car storage. Some of those tracks are located along the CP Rail Bass Lake Subdivision in St. Louis Park. Currently, those tracks can accommodate over 300 train cars. The capacity provided by those tracks is important as it supports TCWR’s day to day operating activities. If the route alternative that is ultimately chosen results in TCWR having less auxiliary trackage available to use, the company would not be able to operate as efficiently as it does today. Methodology The following is an overview of the methodology employed to provide the additional detail requested by the St. Louis Park City Council. Each alternative was evaluated based upon a common set of evaluation measures listed in the section below. This process was intended to provide a fair and objective analysis that would permit an equitable comparison of all possible routes available for use by TCWR. In addition to utilizing aerial photography, rail industry records, rail industry standards, field inspections, the private freight rail companies (TCWR, CP, BNSF and UP) were contacted for review and comment on the alternatives. Chaska cut‐off 5 The following methodology was employed in evaluating the Chaska Cut‐off route. First, a preliminary evaluation was conducted using aerial photographs together with Milwaukee Road engineering documents. This initial step showed that a high percentage of the route that had been abandoned in the 1970s had not yet been developed and that the physical characteristics of the route were not unacceptable for modern train operations (grades, curves, etc). The next step was to conduct a physical inspection of the route. The inspection provided information about the present condition of the proposed route, including the status of bridges, condition of the original right of way, existence of buildings and other structures along the route as well as any other complicating factors that could be identified. Midtown Corridor The review process for the Midtown Corridor began with an evaluation of the route using aerial photographs together with a review of historic Milwaukee Road engineering documents.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • SWLRT) Joint Business Advisory Committee & Community Advisory Committee Meeting June 6, 2013 Benilde - St
    Southwest Light Rail Transitway (SWLRT) Joint Business Advisory Committee & Community Advisory Committee Meeting June 6, 2013 Benilde - St. Margaret’s School 2501 Minnesota Hwy 100, St. Louis Park, MN 55426 6:00 PM – 8:30 PM BAC & CAC Members and Alternates: Art Higinbotham, B Aaron Parker, Jay Peterson, Bill James, Bob Aderhold, Bob Tift, David Greene, Derek Gunderson, Elizabeth Ryan, John Erickson, Linnea Sodergren, Maria Klein, Matt Flory, Meg Forney, Neil Trembley, Rolf Peterson, Tom Jenny, Vicki Moore, Brian Willette, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Thom Miller, Kathryn Kottke, Kathy Cobb, Timothy Brausen, Brad Bakken, Curt Rahman, Daniel Duffy, Dave Pelner, Jennifer Munt, Jeanette Colby. Agency Staff and Guests: Sam O’Connell, Sophia Ginis, Daren Nyquist, Dan Pfeiffer, Chris Weyer, Ryan Kronzer, Sarah Ghandour, Tom Domres, Jim Alexander, Mark Fuhrmann, Craig Lamothe, Paul Danielson, Mark Bishop, Robin Caufman 1. Welcome, Introductions: CAC Co-Chairs Munt & Colby, BAC Co-Chairs Roach & Duffy Co-Chair Munt opened the meeting by thanking Bob Tift and Benilde-St. Margaret’s School for hosting the joint Business and Community Advisory Committee meeting followed by an introduction of BAC and CAC members. 2. Technical Issues Discussion: Jim Alexander, SPO Jim Alexander started with an overview of the twenty-five technical issues. a. Freight Rail: Co-location and Relocation Overview of the background to issue number twenty-one; as the Metropolitan Council gained entrance into preliminary engineering of the Southwest Light Rail Transit Project the Federal Transit Administration required that the project office resolve whether freight rail would be co-located with LRT and the regional trail through the Kenilworth Corridor in Minneapolis or would be relocated to Canadian Pacific’s (CP) MN&S Spur in St.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Memorandum No. 3 Definition of Alternatives
    Southwest Transitway Alternatives Analysis Technical Memorandum No. 3 Definition of Alternatives Prepared for Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority Prepared by: PB Americas, Inc. (PB) January 2007 Table of Contents 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 2. Background and Assumptions ..................................................................................... 1 3. Methodology.................................................................................................................2 4. Transit Technology Screening ..................................................................................... 4 5. Definition of Initial Alternatives................................................................................... 11 6 Refined Alternatives .................................................................................................. 36 Appendix A. Transit Technology Screening ..................................................................A-1 Appendix B. Southwest Transitway Corridor Inventory of Studies................................B-1 Appendix C. Agency/Stakeholder Meetings to Refine Initial Alternatives .................... C-1 Appendix D. Definition of the Refined Alternatives ....................................................... D-1 Appendix E. References ...............................................................................................E-1 Appendix F. BRT Typical Sections................................................................................F-1
    [Show full text]
  • ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEETS EAW Comment Deadline: June 15, 2011
    Publication Date: May 16, 2011 Next Publication: May 30, 2011 Vol. 35, No. 10 Submittal Deadline: May 23, 2011 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEETS EAW Comment Deadline: June 15, 2011 Project Title: Project Title: Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority MN&S Freight Rail Study Description: The Proposed Action consists of required track improvements to the existing Canadian Pacific Railway (CP) Bass Lake Spur, CPMN&S Spur, and the BNSF Railway (BNSF) Wayzata Subdivision in the city of St. Louis Park to accommodate the proposed relocation of the Twin Cities and Western (TC&W) freight rail traffic currently operating in the Kenilworth Corridor in Minneapolis. A portion of the proposed BNSF siding extends into the city of Minneapolis. Copies of the EAW which documents the purpose and need of the project, along with the anticipated social, economic and environmental impacts, are available for public review beginning May 16, 2011, at the following locations: • Project website – http://mnsrailstudy.org • City of St. Louis Park Public Library – 3240 Library Lane • St. Louis Park City Hall – 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard • Hennepin County Public Library – 300 Nicollet Mall To afford an opportunity for all interested person, agencies and groups to be informed about the contents of the EAW, the RGU will host an open house on June 8, 2011 from 4:00 pm. – 7:00pm at St. Louis Park Recreation Center, Banquet Room, 3700 Monterey Drive, St. Louis Park. The EAW can be made available in alternative formats to individuals with disabilities by calling the Minnesota Relay Service at (800)627-3529. The EQB Monitor is a biweekly publication of the Environmental Quality Board that lists descriptions and deadlines for Environmental Assessment Worksheets, Environmental Impact Statements, and other notices.
    [Show full text]
  • Commuter Rail
    Photo E-2. Snelling CP Site; small park and unimproved area; looking east. Photo E-3. Snelling CP Site; view from Selby Avenue; looking south. Photo F-1. Snelling BNSF Site; terminus of Norris Circle; looking east. Photo F-2. Snelling BNSF Site; commercial parking lot; looking west. Photo F-3. Snelling BNSF Site; commercial parking lot; looking east. Photo G-1. University Site; appear to be grain elevators; looking northeast. Photo G-2. University Site; railroad right-of-way and unimproved area; looking northwest. Photo G-3. University Site; gravel access road and unimproved area; looking east. APPENDIX B Downtown Minneapolis Intermodal Station (Northstar Corridor) APPENDIX C Technology Options and Screening Criteria Detailed Technology Screening – BUS RAPID TRANSIT Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) combines the quality of rail transit and the flexibility of buses. It can operate on exclusive transitways, HOV lanes, expressways, or ordinary streets. The BRT system is based on light rail transit principles, but instead of the required capital investment in trains and track, it utilizes buses in service that is integrated with key components of the existing automobile transportation infrastructure, such as roads, rights-of-way, intersections, and traffic signals. Example Systems: Las Vegas, NV; Orlando, FL; Los Angeles, CA • Fully implemented systems are in existence in many • Metro Transit operates express service from US and International Cities. Cottage Grove to downtown St. Paul and Minneapolis. • Can be run on existing/planned Hwy 61 infrastructure. • Average costs per mile = $13.5 million (Dedicated bus • BRT stops and typical frequency of service is roadway) consistent with travel patterns in the Red Rock • Average costs per mile = $9 million (bus on HOV lane) Corridor.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 6: Mobility
    Chapter 6 Mobility: Getting Around Town Vision for the Mobility System Vision 3.0 included a recommendation on mobility to “Develop Future- focused Transit and Mobility.” A Strategic Priority was developed from the recommendation which states, “St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably” and includes the following: » Continuing to expand the network of sidewalks, trails and bike facilities. » Researching and implementing multiple and affordable mobility solutions for all. 6-205 | Mobility: Getting Around Town » Fostering smart growth and transit-oriented housing Mobility System Goals and Strategies development. 1. Plan, design, build, and operate » Increasing pedestrian safety through crosswalk the city’s mobility system in a improvements and increased park and trail lighting. way that prioritizes walking first, » Expanding the number of north-south and east-west transit options. followed by bicycling and transit use, and then motor vehicle use The city’s mobility system is made up of sidewalks, trails, and streets, which are there to provide safe and convenient Strategies A. Incorporate an approach that is based on travel for all. The right of way within the city is an important surrounding land use context when planning and component of the mobility system and must be used designing transportation projects. efficiently to provide the multimodal infrastructure needed to provide for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit service and B. Continue to explore and evaluate flexible and motor vehicles. innovative designs and seek guidance from Each mobility option is tied to the other: pedestrian established best practices, to achieve desired facilities are often connected to bicycle facilities; transit outcomes.
    [Show full text]
  • FINAL REPORT SWLRT Engineering Evaluation of Freight Rail
    Submitted to Metropolitan Council Submitted by TranSystems March 21, 2014 FINAL REPORT SWLRT Engineering Evaluation of Freight Rail Relocation Alternatives SWLRT Engineering Evaluation of Freight Rail Relocation Alternatives FINAL REPORT Table of Contents I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... ........... 1 II. Background ............................................................................................................................... ............ 2 A. TC&W Network and Operations ....................................................................................................... 2 B. Freight Rail Industry Changes ........................................................................................................... 4 III. Scope of Engineering Evaluation ....................................................................................................... 6 IV. Review of Past Studies ...................................................................................................................... 7 A. St. Louis Park Railroad Study (March 1999) ...................................................................................... 7 B. TCWR Freight Rail Realignment Study (November 2009) ................................................................. 7 C. Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan (January 2010).................. 7 D. Freight Rail Study – Evaluation of TCWR Routing Alternatives
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix D – Engineering Assessment of the Potential Passenger Rail Alternatives
    Appendix D – Engineering Assessment of the Potential Passenger Rail Alternatives: By Route Engineering Assessment for Route 1 ROUTE 1 Introduction Route 1 begins in Milwaukee and utilizes track owned by Canadian Pacific through Watertown and Portage. It continues to use Canadian Pacific through Camp Douglas and La Crosse to Winona and Hastings. Between Hastings and St. Paul Union Depot the route uses track owned by Canadian Pacific, BNSF, St. Paul Union Depot Co., and Union Pacific. Between St. Paul Union Depot and Minneapolis Transportation Interchange, the route uses track owned by St. Paul Union Depot Co., BNSF, Union Pacific, Minnesota Commercial, and Canadian Pacific railroads. See the figure below for a graphical depiction of Route 1. Each of the routes considered consists of several route segments. Within those route segments are track sub-segments. The information in this report is presented by track sub-segment. The table below depicts the segments and sub-segments that comprise Route 1. 2011 ©Quandel Consultants, LLC Route 1 - Page 1 Engineering Assessment for Route 1 Segment Segment Endpoints Sub-Segment Sub-Segment Endpoints Milwaukee-Grand Avenue Milwaukee-Grand Avenue A 1 Junction Junction Grand Avenue Junction- B Wauwatosa Grand Avenue Junction- 2 Watertown C Wauwatosa-Watertown E Watertown-Portage 36 Watertown-Portage K Portage-Camp Douglas 11 Portage-Camp Douglas N Camp Douglas-Sparta 16 Camp Douglas-La Crosse O Sparta-La Crosse R La Crosse-Winona 21 La Crosse-Winona S Winona-Red Wing 24 Winona-Hastings V Red Wing-Hastings 28 Hastings-Hoffman Avenue AA Hastings-St. Paul Junction 29 Hoffman Avenue-Division Street 34 Division Street-St.
    [Show full text]
  • East Metro Rail Capacity Study October 2012
    EAST METRO RAIL CAPACITY STUDY OCTOBER 2012 PREPARED FOR: IN PARTNERSHIP WITH: PREPARED BY: East Metro Rail Capacity Study Prepared for Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority in partnership with Red Rock Corridor Commission By the Study Team of: TranSystems Corporation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Rani Engineering The 106 Group Ltd. American Engineering Testing, Inc. LTK Engineering Services David Simpson Consultants HAD-Rail Consulting Services David Evans and Associates, Inc. Table of Contents Definitions Abbreviations EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. ES-1 1.0 Study Background and Purpose .................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Study Area .................................................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Project Partners ............................................................................................................................ 3 1.3 Scope of Study .............................................................................................................................. 6 2.0 Study Process ................................................................................................................................ 7 2.1 Project Development Process ....................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Study
    [Show full text]
  • Northstar Corridor Rail Project Work Group Report
    This document is made available electronically by the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library as part of an ongoing digital archiving project. http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/lrl.asp 04 - 0027 Northstar Corridor Rail Project Work Group Report Required by 2003 Minnesota Legislature Minnesota Session Laws of 2003 l't Special Session Chapter 19 - Section 75 Report Date: January 15,2004 r Northstar Work Group Report Draft January 15, 2004 Introduction The Northstar Corridor Rail Project is a proposed commuter rail project running northwest from downtown Minneapolis near the trunk highway 10 corridor. Potential stations, in addition to downtown, are Northeast Minneapolis, Fridley, Coon Rapids-Foley, Coon Rapids­ Riverdale, Anoka, Elk River, Big Lake, Becker, St. Cloud East, and Rice. The state share of funding for the project has been debated by the Minnesota Legislature since the 2000 session, but has not been authorized. Minnesota Session Laws of 2003, 1st Special Session, Chapter 19, Section 75 (see appendix A) required the commissioner of transportation, in conjunction with the Northstar Corridor Development Authority (NCDA), to convene a work group to perform two specific tasks: 1) Update ridership forecasts for Northstar commuter rail based on 2000 census data and 2) Seek updated information from the Burlington Northem Santa Fe railroad (BNSF) regarding capacity improvements, railroad usage rights, construction, risk and liability allocation, and other related issues. The commissioner must report this to chairs and ranking members of legislative committees having jurisdiction over transportation and capital investment by January 15, 2004. A work group was formed comprised of 22 people from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT), NCDA, Northstar Corridor counties, and the Metropolitan Council with expertise in planning, transportation investment, project management, railroading, and the Northstar corridor.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix B.Doc
    B BACKGROUND MATERIAL SECTION 2 – PLAN ADMINISTRATION GUIDELINES 2.1 Governance It is assumed for the purposes of this System Plan that the ownership of commuter rail assets throughout the State of Minnesota would be in the public interest. In other words, the citizen taxpayers of the state would own the system – specifically those commuter rail assets that are separable from the freight rail facilities, systems, equipment and/or rights-of-way that are owned by the relevant freight railroads. There are several considerations that validate the assumption of public ownership: • The public sector is the logical administrator and overseer of public transportation services provided over rights-of-way owned and operated by multiple freight rail carriers. • Public policy dictates that commuter rail service be provided within the framework of a regional and potentially statewide, publicly funded multi- modal transportation system. • The public sector is the appropriate and responsible choice as manager of the expenditure of public funding required to plan, design, construct, operate and maintain such a system. • The provision of commuter rail service is not viable without substantial public sector financing, which would not likely be available under the auspices of private ownership. The commuter rail service sponsor is the public entity or combination of entities that serves as the public’s principal agent for or overseer of such service. As such, a sponsor serves at a minimum as the lead administrator or contracting entity for all services to be provided. All commuter rail services operated throughout the nation are owned by the public sector and sponsored by one or more public agencies through a variety of intergovernmental agreements.
    [Show full text]
  • State Rail Plan
    State Rail Plan DRAFT MARCH 2015 CONTACT LIST MnDOT Dave Christianson, Project Manager Office of Freight and Commercial Vehicle Operations [email protected] 651-366-3710 Dan Krom, Director Passenger Rail Office [email protected] 651-366-3193 Consultant Team Andreas Aeppli, Project Manager Cambridge Systematics, Inc. [email protected] 617-234-0433 Brian Smalkoski Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. [email protected] 651-643-0472 MINNESOTA GO STATEWIDE RAIL PLAN Draft Plan PAGE i TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTACT LIST ............................................................................................................................................. I TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................ II EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. VII Overview of the Study .................................................................................................................................... vii Context of the 2015 Rail Plan Update ........................................................................................................... viii The Vision for Minnesota’s Multimodal Transportation System ...................................................................... ix Minnesota’s Existing and Future Rail System .................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan
    This document is made available electronically by the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library as part of an ongoing digital archiving project. http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/lrl.asp Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan Draft Final Report December 2009 Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan draft final report Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan prepared for Minnesota Department of Transportation prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. with Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc. TKDA, Inc. December 2009 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... ES-1 Vision for Rail...................................................................................................................... ES-2 System Costs ..................................................................................................................... ES-5 Passenger Rail Performance and Benefits ......................................................................... ES-5 Rail System Development and Funding Responsibilities .................................................... ES-6 1 Overview and Vision ........................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background and Purpose of Study .........................................................................
    [Show full text]